On Sep 18, 2012, at 9:56 AM, Brendan Riordan-Butterworth <Brendan@iab.net> wrote:
> I think we're on a very similar page, but that I'm looking at the text as it stands (at http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html as of Sept 18th), and you're talking about how it should work.
It might be the case that the draft/issue tracker don't fully reflect our discussions of this topic. I believe issues 153 (and perhaps also 150, we have tended to conflate them) should properly be open as we have actions and ongoing discussion of them.
Dave Singer and I proposed text six weeks ago [0] that would add a new requirement on software other than the user agent:
> Software outside of the user agent that causes a DNT header to be sent (or modifies existing headers) MUST NOT do so without following the requirements of this section; such software is responsible for assuring the expressed preference reflects the user's intent.
Adding that requirement to the text might resolve the gap between your common understanding with dsinger and the current text. Dave Wainberg seemed tentatively supportive, though he provided additional text on resolving conflicts that we didn't have agreement on.
I think the proposed text quoted above would be sufficient to close ISSUE-153 (and address many of the concerns on 150). We don't currently have requirements on the UA on what UI they use to tell the user the current state of the DNT signal being sent; I don't think we want to add such requirements or requirements on the UI interactions with other software, which I expect would be unenforceable.
Thanks,
Nick
[0] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Aug/0001.html